₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight: As shown above, it is open and fair reason and logic. If you have a different understanding, please show it to me for consideration, not so? It helps nothing to repeatedly advance as your only position the fact that you believe no one can or should have a position. I hope you realize that this "as far as we know" game which you play, or "according to your understanding" - is a game that can be applied to insist that we should all shut up and never advance any positions because whatever we may construe will simply be only "as far as we know" and "according to our understanding" and thus will amount to arguing from ignorance.

THIS attitude renders every discusssion meaningless. I will suggest that if that is all you have to bring to the table, then there is no point in your coming to the table. Really. Think on it.

Lol, I want to assume you're cracking jokes here. The example remains the same, be it macaroni, spagetti, noodles or even flying egusi.

You know, the thing about you - and I mean this in good faith - is that you are seldom, if ever, to be seen tackling the meat of any matter. I don't know if it is a tactic or just a part of your "we don't know anything and should all shut up" attitude. I just wearies me because you are always happy to snack on side matters, petty distractions and most often even outrightly refuse to engage issues. You dont need to give examples, you say. You dont rely on science, you say. What then is the purpose having a discussion with you. Seriously, I mean this in good faith. How can you help teach me knew things with such an approach. Where is the added value?

It would be nice to see you focus more on the meat of discussions and actually put a foot forward, instead of hanging back where its dark and safe and you cant be said to have said anything, as you claim.

And this is an excellent example of my point about you above: shall we all pack our bags up, eschew discussions and cease to postulate our ideas on existence and the universe, since as you say, knowledge is not absolute, and it is at all events only our "limited view" always in operation, and as such all discussions are assumptions upon assumptions upon assumptions, no?

What's the point making any point?

You have obviously taken that position and that's why you admitted that you do not put your foot forward on anything in discourses.

on account of your mysterious angst against the messenger, you revile the message.

I would like to suggest to you that ultimate truth exists but is something that due to the limits of our senses, we cannot know unless we possessed some sort of omniscience. Ultimate truth is illusive and even if we were to come face to face with it, we will not know it (we would still call it particular truth). All we can work with is particular truth.

Ultimate truth is what we use as a place holder it is what we call what believe may turn out true but it is yet unknown. This allows us to be able to cautiously say "maybe there is something more than this" and hence use phrases like "to the best of my knowledge". The thing is that when we make a new discovery, we call it particular truth and push ultimate truth even further. Truth is just truth, it is only our knowledge that is limited.

What is yet unknown can neither be true nor false.

To explain what I mean, let's look at our Urhobo boy. Assuming after he has been convince that he is Urhobo, someone comes with logical proof that he is indeed Ibo by showing him that the attribute he thought was exclusive to Urhobos has actually been discovered to be also possession of Ibos i.e. a new discovery has been made. then the person goes on to present to him an attribute that he has that only Ibos can have. Now he has a new particular truth which is that he is Ibo. Now let us say another new discover comes out and it is found that he is actually Hausa and yet again another and it is found that he is Tiv. At this point the boy is waiting for the next new discovery so as to find what new tribe he must really come from. Now assuming the ultimate truth of the matter is that the boy is Tiv, he cannot know this. He will still think that there ought to be an ultimate truth outside his particular truth.

What is my point? The world is vast and there are things we don't know but then we keep moving forward and discovering stuff. The thing is that the more we discover, the more we assure ourselves that there is more to discover i.e. tending towards knowing the ultimate truth. However realistically, we cannot work with a truth that is yet unknown. we can only work with what we know now as true and if it follows logically, then we must accept it as true and work with it. At any point where is ceases to logically follow, then we must find what else logically follows and that is how we move forward in discovering truth.

e.g. we used to believe the earth was flat. It logically followed that if it was people and buildings won't slide of it. Later, we observed that ships disappear over a horizon and that led us to the truth of a spherical earth. This is our particular truth for now, it may or may not be the ultimate truth. But we must continue to accept it as true until we observe an event that doesn't logically follow from it, then we will move on to an even more accurate discovery. As I said earlier, truth is just truth It is only our knowledge that is limited, but then we have logic which helps us to discern truth.

Do you follow up to now?

Deep Sight: WHAT! ! ! ! Is Plaetton same person as logicbloy ? ? ? ? ? ?

Deep Sight: If you have studied visual illusions, you might be acquainted with the fact that what you see is not what is there. And this says alot. It says that that which is real can by no means be limited to our senses, as you earlier suggested. Even your partial color blindness says the same thing.

For Jayriginal, I add this - observation still remains the tool of science nonetheless.

mkmyers45: I brought up virtual particles and you refuted it but did not go on to tell me what causes them..Remember that you said also that nothing can never exist which i showed to be not true..

Deep Sight: Jayriginal's conundrum.

MacDaddy01: Emotions and thoughts are chemical reactions. We feel the emotions. I am going to self-service soon. Blood will rush to my gbola

Deep Sight: Give me an example of one single OBSERVED EVENT that you know has no cause.

Deep Sight: Oh yeah, just like once upon a time the atom was the smallest particle, no?

Oh,and go back and read your link again. If you had read it, you would not have posted it.

plaetton: Beautiful logic.
By the same token, So if god exists, god cannot come from nothing, so there must be something pre-existent and more permanent than god.right?

Deep Sight: 1. Something exists.

2. Something cannot come from nothing.

3. Thus something pre exists.

4. The pre existent cannot be nothing.

5. It is thus a permanent something.

Deep Sight: By reason.

It is logical to say that a first cause is eternal or immaterial:

Is it logical to say that a first cause is Indomie Noodles?

Deep Sight: Conscisely, because the universe is matter,and matter cannot cause itself and as such, the cause of matter cannot be matter: and is therefore immaterial. That which is immaterial is naturally permanent and uncaused.

Deep Sight: Because the universe demonstrably had a beginning.

FSM also presupposes first cause.

However, there are certain basic information which we must take for granted. This is what we call reality. The problem however is that this basic reality or worldview can be false e.g. the urhobo boy who is sure that he is yoruba.

Agreed again

How then do we know if our reality is true or false?

Enter logic: Logic is our way of weighing the truth value of our realities i.e. If our reality is true, then we can identify such and such as should follow from it. If they do not follow from it, then we can say that such a worldview is demonstrably false.

For an explanation of what I mean, we'll go back to the Urhobo boy who thinks he is Yoruba: If someone were to tell him that he is really Urhobo and not Yoruba, his rebuttals (if they are reasonable) would come in the form of "I have X attribute and Yorubas have X attribute therefore it should follow that I am Yoruba". The person trying to convince him must show that the attributes he is holding up are not exclusive to Yorubas and must then provide an attribute which is exclusive to Urhobos that Yorubas cannot have. If the boy has this attribute, then it is settled that he cannot be Yoruba. At this point, they would have arrived at truth by logic.

Purist: Here, let me attempt to answer that for Anony.

First, I start by writing "lol".

Then I proceed. . .

How would you define "rest"? What do you really understand by "rest" as used in that verse?

You see, "rest" in heavenly parlance does not mean that one is taking a break from tiredness as we humans understand it. It simply means that since he was done creating everything, there was nothing left to create, hence, the writer had to use the word "rest" for lack of a better word.

By the way, do you have any reason to question why he chose to rest? He is God, the Almighty... He does what he pleases!! Not satisfied? Go make your own universe!!

musKeeto: But the intended meaning of "rest" is very clear in that verse. You can only take a rest when you're tired and you need to recuperate.

Mr_Anony: lol [again], you miss the point. Did you read what I wrote? Go back and read from the beginning so you can present a better argument.

------------
Anony, you owe me a glass of wine.

jayriginal: Any knowledge would have to be objectively verifiable. The methodology clearly set out and it should be capable of replication (where applicable).
This guards against an individual making an assertion and urging the rest to take it on faith.

While not 100 percent foolproof, I think it is the best we can do.

By objectively verifiable, I mean using the 5 senses and in such a way that another (normal) person would reach the same conclusion using the same senses.

jayriginal: EDIT:
I have not assumed our 5 senses cannot be deceived.

Illusions attest to this.

wizecoder: lol...nah..what do i stand to gain....

aguiyi: as a coder, i want to believe u have series of nice and reliable ea and indicators. do u mind letting me in on any?

i plan to subscribe to the tsd advanced elite forum next week , what do u think

wizecoder: Good one...........

aguiyi: bro are you a member of tsd

wizecoder: naaa .................
by coders guru

wizecoder: the mql4 ebook is on forexlodge.com

wizecoder: Good one jay got the E-book ...?

unclenna: @wizecoder, pls can you explain in a layman's English with examples what a "string" is.....Thanks.

wizecoder: Yea go through it and download the EAs from forexlodge.com,